Re: [Core](PRD] safeness

Hi Dave,

public-rif-wg-request@w3.org wrote on 11/06/2009 10:03:34:
> 
> > You are right, the definition is not explicit enough on this aspect 
(in 
> > an earlier version, there was a note about whether we should remind 
> > readers that existentially quantified variables did not exist outside 
> > their existential formula, but I removed it without action, when Dave 
> > seemed to imply that it was clear enough).
> 
> Don't blame me :-)

"When", not "because". The effective cause is my natural laziness.

> Actually I think that note would be helpful, though hardly critical.

In the definition of "safe rule", I replaced "all the variables that occur 
in [the condition] are bound in [the condition]", by "all the universally 
quantified variables that occur in [the condition] are bound in [the 
condition], and all the existentially quantified variables that occur in 
[the condition] are bound within the scope of their respective 
quantifiers".

I will also describe more precisely how the existentially quantifiers are 
moved out of the way (esp. in the presence of negation, that is, for the 
PRD extension).

Christian

Sauf indication contraire ci-dessus:/ Unless stated otherwise above:
Compagnie IBM France
Siège Social : Tour Descartes, 2, avenue Gambetta, La Défense 5, 92400 
Courbevoie
RCS Nanterre 552 118 465
Forme Sociale : S.A.S.
Capital Social : 609.751.783,30 ?
SIREN/SIRET : 552 118 465 02430